Thomas, the report you referenced merely stated that the Russians may have warned the Syrians. So if you want to argue that this was a PR stunt because the Russians were notified that seems skinny given all the downsides of not doing so.

I think Assad now knows wmd use has consequences.

Btw, from what I have read runways can be easily repaired so there was little point in targeting these.

Your argument seems to be; this a joke because Trump didn't do more but in light of all the consequences that have stemmed from Obama's in action I disagree.

So if you want to argue that this was a PR stunt because the Russians were notified that seems skinny given all the downsides of not doing so.

Hardly any damage done, no effect, relationship with Russia still strained. If Trump cared a no fly zone would be the way to go. Show attacks like this do nothing but enable Islam extremist propaganda.

Well, I guess Trump knows that only a large terror strike can save his presidency and keep people distracted from his campaign collaboration in an act of war against the United States, so he is really trying hard to get enough Americans killed to keep him in office.

I think Assad now knows wmd use has consequences.

Yeah.. He now knows he is free to use WMD as long as he is willing to accept a slap on the wrist with no risk what soever to him, his crownies or his ability to wage war.

Btw, from what I have read runways can be easily repaired so there was little point in targeting these.

Yes they are easy to repair. It is still standard procedure to take them out. A cantine is repaired by setting up a tent, yet it apparently was worth a Tomahawk.

[Quote]Your argument seems to be; this a joke because Trump didn't do more but in light of all the consequences that have stemmed from Obama's in action I disagree.[/quote

What I would have thought was one of Trump's biggest weaknesses -- his unpredictability -- may in fact, turn out to be one of his strengths. Dealing with an unpredictable opponent is much more dangerous than dealing with a predictable one.

According to whom? It sounds like BS claim to me that a certain kind of an explosion couldn't cause a leak without actually destroying most of the gas.

I'm speculating -- and you are too -- but I would imagine that might be the case if the explosion resulted in a very minor fireball, or none at all. The pic below is of a Tomahawk missile exploding. Difficult to imagine much surviving that.

Aside from that, there are enough witness reports to indicate it was the work of the Syrian government. It suits the Russian narrative to posit the rebel-owned weapons theory as being the source of the sarin gas as otherwise it makes them look either incompetent or complicit. Putin either has egg on his face after being hoodwinked by Assad, given that Russia guaranteed in 2013 that Assad's chemical weapons would be destroyed, or he was complicit in the attack. You take your pick .. .

According to whom? It sounds like BS claim to me that a certain kind of an explosion couldn't cause a leak without actually destroying most of the gas.

I'm speculating -- and you are too -- but I would imagine that might be the case if the explosion resulted in a very minor fireball, or none at all. The pic below is of a Tomahawk missile exploding. Difficult to imagine much surviving that.

Aside from that, there are enough witness reports to indicate it was the work of the Syrian government. It suits the Russian narrative to posit the rebel-owned weapons theory as being the source of the sarin gas as otherwise it makes them look either incompetent or complicit. Putin either has egg on his face after being hoodwinked by Assad, given that Russia guaranteed in 2013 that Assad's chemical weapons would be destroyed, or he was complicit in the attack. You take your pick .. .

Interesting. But removed from reality.

It is interesting that some posters never learn to discern between resasonably reliable information sources and those that have regularly shown to produce lies and misdirections ... after some time.

bombing will invariably lead to uncontrolled release. ( don't get mislead by Hollywood movies.)

WIederling wrote:

Interesting. But removed from reality.

It is interesting that some posters never learn to discern between resasonably reliable information sources and those that have regularly shown to produce lies and misdirections ... after some time.

Before you start throwing insults, you might like to do some research, or post some links.

There was an interview on RTE Radio 1 yesterday with Hamish de Bretton Gordon, a former British Army chemical weapons expert, who claimed that "the high explosives used would have destroyed the sarin . . . I have destroyed enough sarin myself with high explosives to know exactly that is the case"

There was an interview on RTE Radio 1 yesterday with Hamish de Bretton Gordon, a former British Army chemical weapons expert, who claimed that "the high explosives used would have destroyed the sarin . . . I have destroyed enough sarin myself with high explosives to know exactly that is the case"

I'm speculating -- and you are too -- but I would imagine that might be the case if the explosion resulted in a very minor fireball, or none at all. The pic below is of a Tomahawk missile exploding. Difficult to imagine much surviving that.

Indeed, the Syrian Air Force isn't using Tomahawk missiles or any other particularly high tech weaponry, thus their accuracy might not be the best. It could be possible that the attack missed the target in a way which did enough damage to release the gas, but not enough heat to destroy it.

Braybuddy wrote:

Aside from that, there are enough witness reports to indicate it was the work of the Syrian government. It suits the Russian narrative to posit the rebel-owned weapons theory as being the source of the sarin gas as otherwise it makes them look either incompetent or complicit. Putin either has egg on his face after being hoodwinked by Assad, given that Russia guaranteed in 2013 that Assad's chemical weapons would be destroyed, or he was complicit in the attack. You take your pick .. .

There's no way to know the reliability of said witness reports, there's so much propaganda around. Western media regularly quotes "Syrian Observator for Human Rights", an organization run by a single anti-Assad guy who lives in the UK, as if it was a reliable and neutral source of information which it quite clearly isn't. Nobody is doing any fact-checking nowadays if the story fits their agenda.

"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." - Martin Luther King Jr

Monday on Laura Ingraham’s nationally syndicated radio show, conservative commentator Pat Buchanan discussed the possibility of the United States escalating its involvement in the Syrian civil war days after President Donald Trump launched a military strike on a Syrian airbase in responding to the Syrian government’s alleged use of chemical weapons.

Buchanan noted the biggest cheerleaders of Trump’s action were Sens. John McCain (R-AZ), Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Marco Rubio (R-FL), which he deemed to be “the war party.” However, argued that they would not “get the war they want” from Trump.

“It’s McCain and Graham and Marco Rubio — the war party,” Buchanan said. “But let me say this, Laura — my view is they’re not going to get the war they want. If Donald Trump the president takes us into Syria’s civil war and he’s already made the first strike — it will consume his presidency. And the sense I get this morning and listening to some of these folks on yesterday’s show is that, ‘Don’t worry, this is just a one-off. We’re not going into Syria. The enemy is still ISIS, as indeed it is if you take a look at what happened in Egypt yesterday, 47 dead and 100 injured.”

“So I think the war party is going to be frustrated because I cannot believe that Donald Trump on second thought is going to plunge us into Syria, which he told us again and again and again would be an act of folly — that our enemy is ISIS and our enemy is al-Qaeda and that we should finish them off,” he added. “Then we’re necessarily going to have to work with the folks who did most of the heavy lifting in finishing them off.”

There's no way to know the reliability of said witness reports, there's so much propaganda around. Western media regularly quotes "Syrian Observator for Human Rights", an organization run by a single anti-Assad guy who lives in the UK, as if it was a reliable and neutral source of information which it quite clearly isn't. Nobody is doing any fact-checking nowadays if the story fits their agenda.

I wouldn't expect you to believe anything outside of RT, but the left-leaning Guardian (no friend of either the UK or US governments) has an interesting analysis:

“The pattern of casualties isn’t right for the distribution of materials that you would get if you had a location with toxic materials breached by an airstrike. It’s more consistent with canisters that have distributed [chemical weapons] over a wider population,” Guthrie said.

While it is impossible to assess the exact amount of chemical agent used immediately, the extent and distribution of the casualties are consistent with the use of hundreds of kilos.

Sarin is too complicated and expensive for rebels to have manufactured themselves, and while they might potentially have obtained some supplies of stolen nerve agents or other gas, it is very unlikely to be more than a few kilos.

“If they have [sarin], it would be in minute quantities, maybe a kilo or so,” said De Bretton Gordon. The high numbers of woman and children among the casualties was not consistent with a military depot, he added.

Finally, the Syrian manufacturing process for sarin involves creating and storing two key components, both far more stable than the nerve agent itself. They are mixed to create sarin hours – or at most days – before it is used, said Dan Kaszeta, a chemical weapons expert and former officer in the US Army’s chemical corps.

So an airstrike on a storage facility would be unlikely to release sarin itself. And because one of the two components is highly flammable isopropyl alcohol, or rubbing alcohol, you would expect a fireball, which has not been observed.

If explosive destruction would work the way your reference suggests all the hassle reported would rather obviously not be necessary.

But that article describes the process of how to ideally destroy chemical weapons, using laboratory conditions. It details the perfect way to do it: first dismantling them and destroying the components in a controlled environment, so there has to be absolutely no room for error. It confirms that the chemicals are destroyed by extremely high temperatures.

And of course containers can be breached by shrapnel fairly far away from the explosion. And where is the Tomahawk explosion picture from. How do you know that is not secondary fires started by the impact, or that the fires burned before the impact? If there is still fuel left, you can get a fireball, but Bombs and such usually don´t make much in the way of fireballs outside of movies.

And of course containers can be breached by shrapnel fairly far away from the explosion. And where is the Tomahawk explosion picture from. How do you know that is not secondary fires started by the impact, or that the fires burned before the impact? If there is still fuel left, you can get a fireball, but Bombs and such usually don´t make much in the way of fireballs outside of movies.

You're prepared to believe any possible explanation, apart from the obvious.

The obvious is that chemical weapons have been released by bomb attacks on the storage facility, just as the CIA, the Federation of American Scientists and lots of others conclude....

That is just as obvious, as it is obvious that explosions can release Chemical weapons and can not be relied to be destroyed them. Seriously, Chemical weapons use explosives for initial dispersion, that would be about the most stupid thing to do if explosives lead to any significant degradation of effectiveness.

There is however not a doubt that the Regime was behind the attack, bombing the Hospital the victims are in is a dead give away after all.

The obvious is that chemical weapons have been released by bomb attacks on the storage facility, just as the CIA, the Federation of American Scientists and lots of others conclude....

That is just as obvious, as it is obvious that explosions can release Chemical weapons and can not be relied to be destroyed them. Seriously, Chemical weapons use explosives for initial dispersion, that would be about the most stupid thing to do if explosives lead to any significant degradation of effectiveness.

There is however not a doubt that the Regime was behind the attack, bombing the Hospital the victims are in is a dead give away after all.

You know you really are wasting your vast talents and knowledge on here. You should be advising the UN on weapons' capability and disarmament.

1. He was so moved and angered by the gas attack, he wanted to do something. Flint and parts of Appalachia and many rural areas in the United States have poisoned water. What about us?

B. The right screamed and howled when Obama followed the Constitution and asked Congress for authorization for use of force against Assad. This guy goes against the Constitution and the right is cheering his bold decision. What is the difference?

Well, since with that statement you agree with mine and contradict both your experts and yourself, I guess this argument has been solved.

Wishful thinking sunshine . . . quite the opposite in fact! You are the one agreeing that explosives will destroy the chemicals, just not reliably, which can only be done under laboratory conditions. But I don't know even why I'm arguing here as this is going down the rabbit hole of actually believing that there was a cache of rebel-held chemical weapons, for which there is not one shred of proof, unlike the most likely theory: that of Syrian army chemical weapons. But if a canister of Assad's sarin was to explode in your face you would still tie yourself in knots -- for whatever reasons -- in a desperate attempt to prove otherwise . . .

BraybuddyYou have been arguing all along in this thread that an explosion would destroy the sarin.

Not me, I'm just quoting the chemicals weapons expert Hamish de Bretton Gordon. Tommy has been referencing reports where chemical weapons are destroyed "reliably". The ideal way to do that is under laboratory conditions, ie where a supply of chemicals must be completely destroyed. But that doesn't mean that that cannot happen outside laboratory conditions, for example a limited amount of sarin ignited by a relatively large explosion. Mr de Bretton Gordon writes: "While it is impossible to assess the exact amount of chemical agent used immediately, the extent and distribution of the casualties are consistent with the use of hundreds of kilos. Sarin is too complicated and expensive for rebels to have manufactured themselves, and while they might potentially have obtained some supplies of stolen nerve agents or other gas, it is very unlikely to be more than a few kilos. If they have [sarin], it would be in minute quantities, maybe a kilo or so, The high numbers of women and children among the casualties was not consistent with a military depot . . . The high explosives used would have destroyed the sarin: I have destroyed enough sarin myself with high explosives to know exactly that is the case".

Withdraw US / Allies assistance to Syria and Let Putin have Syria, and just focus on pushing ISIL out of Iraq and fully into Syria, so that ISIL will become the problem of Putin and Assad. Who cares if they all kill each other off and blow each other up in that part of the world. Also, as I said in the other thread, now that Trump has changed his position and claimed that NATO is no longer 'obsolete', I'd love to see the US somehow get the Ukraine invited to join NATO. We would then see where Putin's priorities lie and just how important Syria is to Putin compared to his beloved Ukraine wet dreams.

Withdraw US / Allies assistance to Syria and Let Putin have Syria, and just focus on pushing ISIL out of Iraq and fully into Syria, so that ISIL will become the problem of Putin and Assad. Who cares if they all kill each other off and blow each other up in that part of the world. Also, as I said in the other thread, now that Trump has changed his position and claimed that NATO is no longer 'obsolete', I'd love to see the US somehow get the Ukraine invited to join NATO. We would then see where Putin's priorities lie and just how important Syria is to Putin compared to his beloved Ukraine wet dreams.

Jesse

Well nobody seems to eager to touch that can of worms that Ukraine has turned into. And I am not talking about the civil war, but just the mess they turbed that country into. So I don't think anyone is stupid enough to take them into NATO.

I do not dream about movie stars, they must dream about me for I am real and they are not. - Alexander Popov

You've leveraged Mr Hamish de Bretton Gordon's TV expertise to argue your case that SAA bombs would have destroyed a local stash of war gasses and thus it must have been SAA poison gas bombings.

You apparently are about as clean of mind as the Trump administration. Just like in religious argument the chain of cause gets more contrived by the minute.

Can you provide some info or link that he knows "nothing"? Bit of a sweeping -- and arrogant -- statement, don't you think? You believe you know more than an internationally respected chemical weapons expert . . .

The high numbers of women and children among the casualties was not consistent with a military depot . .

So, 250.000 US Soldiers can be effected to one degree or another by an attack on military depots, despite having all the protective gear and equipment they need, and usually being far away from them when they got bombed, but it couldn´t kill children and women. Right. And how is that be consistent? Consistent with which data exactly? It is not like there is ample experience from bombing Chemical weapon storage sites to compare with. In fact there are none for densely populated areas. And why are dead women to be expected? Is the LD50 for women somehow different than for men? Are men working at a ISIS chemical weapon storage facility not to be expected to have protective gear?Good advice from my old history teacher: "If people invoke women, children or babies, you should start from the assumption it is made up". In the decades since then that has proven basically universally correct.

And if he has destroyed lots of Chemical weapons with explosions, in which cities and nations did he exactly blow up chemical weapon storage sites with somewhat random impact points of dropped weapons and where is the data?

And if he has destroyed lots of Chemical weapons with explosions, in which cities and nations did he exactly blow up chemical weapon storage sites with somewhat random impact points of dropped weapons and where is the data?

"A veteran of both Gulf Wars and tours in Iraq and Afghanistan Hamish commanded the CBRN Regt in Iraq and around the World conducting a number of highly secret operations some of which are now declassified. During a tour of Afghanistan with a small group he set out to destroy 50 tonnes of highly toxic chemicals under the noses of the Taliban."

All I would allow is destroying the storage facility and thus removing controlled access to the stuff... Combined with making a major mess from releasing toxic agents.( In his eyes probably just an added boon.)

But his CV makes clear that he isn´t to be considered unbiased, he will sing the party line. Those that don´t sing the Party Line (FAS/UN) disagree with his assessment, and as you just your self admitted, he doesn´t have the data needed to make the prediction he has made.

Thought you wouldn't. I'm not going to answer questions to which I cannot answer. Neither can you.

You guys are a hoot: you're prepared to completely ignore what would seem to be reasonably compelling evidence that Assad used chemical weapons, and keep looking for proof, yet are prepared to offer no evidence to back up your claims that they came from a rebel-held cache.

The Russians immediately claimed that Syrian warplanes accidentally hit a rebel-held cache. How could they know, seeing that they never examined the site? They haven't provided one shred of evidence. Then Putin suggested the chemical attack was carried out by rebel groups as a way of framing the Assad regime and drawing the U.S. deeper into the conflict. Seems they can't make up their mind, unlike you guys.

And why would Russia veto a draft U.N. Security Council resolution that would have forced Assad to comply with an investigation into the attack?